Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36312214›Full record

ArticleSN business & economics2022

Acceptance or rejection of welfare migration-an experimental investigation.

Jürgen Huber, Laura Hueber, Daniel Kleinlercher, Thomas Stöckl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SN business & economics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jürgen HuberDepartment of Banking and Finance, University of Innsbruck, Universitätsstrasse 15, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-0073-0321
Laura HueberDepartment of Banking and Finance, University of Innsbruck, Universitätsstrasse 15, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Daniel KleinlercherDepartment of Banking and Finance, University of Innsbruck, Universitätsstrasse 15, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Thomas StöcklDepartment Business & Management, MCI The Entrepreneurial School, Universitätsstrasse 15, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-2815-383X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We study decisions on welcoming or opposing welfare migration in a laboratory setting with two societies in which one subject can migrate from the poorer to the richer society, provided a majority in the richer society votes to allow that. In each society, subjects indicate their preference for a percentage contribution to a public pool. The median of these rates sets the contributions paid by everybody; a feature that results in high contribution rates with an average of 90%. Varying the multiplier with which contributions are magnified before redistribution to society members, and thus the expected gain/loss associated with migration, we find that subjects overwhelmingly welcome migrants if they expect an economic benefit, while most participants oppose migration if they would be negatively affected by it. Regarding participants' attitudes, we find that more altruistic people are more in favor of migration than more selfish people and that center right-wing oriented subjects propose lower contribution levels than center left-wing oriented subjects. We conclude that economic motives are a crucial factor for accepting or rejecting welfare migration. Therefore, a key to promoting acceptance of new migrants is to ensure and then communicate that their net effect on growth, society, and the public purse is positive. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43546-022-00356-6.

Indexed as

Behavioral economicsMigrationPublic good gameUniform contribution

Identifiers

PMID36312214
PMCPMC9592661

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.